DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022).
In regard to Claim 1, Ohashi teaches a vehicle comprising (see Claim 1 teaching a vehicle suspension controller):
A first suspension subsystem associated with a first axle of the vehicle (see Claim 2 teaching that a load can be allotted to a front axle of the vehicle);
A second suspension subsystem associated with a second axle of the vehicle (see Claim 2 teaching that a load can be allotted to a rear axle of the vehicle); and
A vehicle computing system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the vehicle computing system to perform operations comprising (see Figure 1, Column 3 lines 35-40 teaching that the controller includes a control means M3 that includes a memory and a processing unit):
Determining that the vehicle has changed its direction of travel (see Claim 2 teaching that the controller determines when the vehicle is turning); and
Based at least in part on determining that the vehicle has changed its direction of travel:
Adjusting a first adjustment component of the first suspension subsystem (see Claim 2 teaching that when the vehicle is turning, the front axle is allotted a smaller load); and
Adjusting a second adjustment component of the second suspension subsystem (see Claim 2 teaching that when the vehicle is done turning, the rear axle is allotted a smaller load).
In regard to Claim 7, Ohashi further teaches adjusting the first adjustment component comprises modifying hydraulic pressure in the first adjustment component (see Column 2 lines 13-19 teaching that the suspension components include pistons with hydraulic actuators).
In regard to Claim 8, Ohashi further teaches a method comprising:
Determining a direction of travel of a vehicle (see Claim 2 teaching that the controller determines when the vehicle is turning); and
Based at least in part on the direction of travel:
Adjusting a first adjustment component of a first suspension subsystem associated with a first axle of the vehicle (see Claim 2 teaching that when the vehicle is turning, the front axle is allotted a smaller load); and
Adjusting a second adjustment component of a second suspension subsystem associated with a second axle of the vehicle (see Claim 2 teaching that when the vehicle is done turning, the rear axle is allotted a smaller load).
In regard to Claim 15, Ohashi further teaches a vehicle suspension system comprising:
A suspension controller communicatively connected to the suspension system (see Figure 1, Column 3 lines 35-40 teaching that the suspension controller includes a control means M3 that includes a memory and a processing unit).
The rest of Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (a first suspension subsystem associated with a first axle of the vehicle, and a second suspension subsystem associated with a second axle of the vehicle), and Claim 8 (the bulk of the claim). Please see the rejection of Claims 1, 8 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 20, Ohashi further teaches wherein determining the direction of travel of the vehicle is based at least in part on sensor data received from one or more sensors configured at the vehicle (see Abstract lines 2-11, Claim 2 teaching that the load allotment between the front and rear suspension components is determined based on data from vehicle turning sensors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562).
In regard to Claim 2, Ohashi fails to teach determining that the first axle is a leading axle, and determining that the second axle is a trailing axle.
However, Strelic teaches determining that the first axle is a leading axle, and determining that the second axle is a trailing axle (see Paragraph 7 teaching a vehicle load relief control system that analyzes vehicle wheel rotation direction information to determine if the vehicle is in a reverse state or not).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the capability to determine whether a vehicle is in a reverse state of not as substantially identical to determining whether a particular axle is a leading axle or a trailing axle.
Ohashi and Strelic are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems (see Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that could determine whether a particular axle is a leading or trailing axle at a particular time as taught by Strelic. Doing so could improve a suspension system by enabling the system to implement settings that correspond to a forward/reverse setting. This could improve vehicle reliability and handling.
Ohashi further fails to teach wherein adjusting the first adjustment component comprises reducing a first ride frequency at the first axle, and
Adjusting the second adjustment component comprises increasing a second ride frequency at the second axle.
However, You teaches wherein adjusting the first adjustment component comprises reducing a first ride frequency at the first axle (see Paragraph 63 teaching a vehicle noise reduction system wherein during over-steer, damping forces are increased at the front of the vehicle), and
Adjusting the second adjustment component comprises increasing a second ride frequency at the second axle (see Paragraph 63 teaching that during over-steer, damping forces are decreased at the rear of the vehicle).
Ohashi and You are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that reduces suspension frequency at the front axle and increases frequency at the rear axle as taught by You. Doing so could improve a suspension system by promoting quicker chassis rotation, enabling the vehicle to recover quickly from disturbances, and improving handling predictability.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 2 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 2 above for analysis.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 2 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 2 above for analysis.
Claims 3-5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Harder (U.S. Patent 8,280,585 B2).
In regard to Claim 3, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a speed of the vehicle.
However, Harder teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a speed of the vehicle (see Column 3 lines 47-51, Column 5 lines 11-22 teaching an electronically-controlled vehicle damping system that adjusts the damping level of the vehicle at both axles based in part on vehicle speed sensor data).
Ohashi and Harder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein damping adjustments are based on vehicle speed as taught by Harder. Doing so could increase the reliability, performance, and safety of a vehicle.
In regard to Claim 4, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on sensor data from one or more sensors communicatively connected to at least one of the first suspension subsystem or the second suspension subsystem.
However, Harder teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on sensor data from one or more sensors communicatively connected to at least one of the first suspension subsystem or the second suspension subsystem (see Column 3 lines 15-17, Column 5 lines 11-22 teaching that the damping adjustments are made based on data from speed sensors fitted to the vibration dampers).
Ohashi and Harder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein damping adjustments are determined based on vehicle suspension system data as taught by Harder. Doing so could improve a suspension system by implementing a feedback system that dynamically updates frequency or dampening settings based on input from suspension system sensors. This could improve vehicle reliability, service life, and handling.
In regard to Claim 5, Ohashi fails to teach wherein the sensor data comprises data indicating one or more of a vehicle ride height or a vehicle load.
However, Harder teaches wherein the sensor data comprises data indicating one or more of a vehicle ride height or a vehicle load (see Column 4 lines 27-29 teaching that the system contains additional sensors that determine the height level of the vehicle body).
Ohashi and Harder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein damping is determined based on the vehicle’s height as taught by Harder. Doing so could improve handling, safety, and reliability, since optimal vehicle suspension settings vary widely based on the center of gravity of the vehicle or the undercarriage ground clearance.
In regard to Claim 13, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on determining that a speed of the vehicle meets or exceeds a threshold speed.
However, Harder teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on determining that a speed of the vehicle meets or exceeds a threshold speed (see Column 5 lines 11-22 teaching that only speeds of the vehicle exceeding a threshold will trigger a damping adjustment).
Ohashi and Harder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the a suspension components are only adjusted based on speeds that exceed a threshold as taught by Harder. Doing so could improve a suspension system by preventing wear and tear from adjustments made for negligible speed changes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Harder (U.S. Patent 8,280,585 B2), in further view of Yoshioka (U.S. Patent 5,401,052).
In regard to Claim 6, Ohashi fails to teach wherein the sensor data comprises first sensor data associated with the first suspension subsystem and second sensor data associated with the second suspension subsystem, and
At least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a ratio of the first sensor data and the second sensor data.
However, Yoshioka teaches wherein the sensor data comprises first sensor data associated with the first suspension subsystem and second sensor data associated with the second suspension subsystem (see Column 6 lines 26-31 teaching a vehicle suspension device that receives sensor data from each of the front vehicle wheels and the rear vehicle wheels), and
At least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a ratio of the first sensor data and the second sensor data (see Abstract, Figure 9, Column 1 line 65-Column 2 line 7, Column 6 lines 26-31, Column 11 lines 54-63, Claim 9 teaching that the system increases the damping force at the suspension shock absorbers, based on sensor data from pressure sensors at each wheel, wherein the data is used to determine a rolling movement component for the front and rear portions of the vehicle, and wherein the rolling movement components are determined using ratios).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting an increasing of dampening at a suspension component to be synonymous with decreasing the component’s frequency.
Ohashi and Yoshioka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that uses ratios based on suspension sensor data to decrease suspension component frequency as taught by Yoshioka. Doing so could improve a suspension system by implementing a feedback system that dynamically updates frequency or dampening settings based on input from suspension system sensors. This could improve vehicle reliability, service life, and handling.
Claims 10, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Ohno (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0307339 A1).
In regard to Claim 10, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on sensor data from a sensor configured at the vehicle.
However, Ohno teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on sensor data from a sensor configured at the vehicle (see Figures 3, 6, Paragraph 45, Paragraph 129 lines 1-9 teaching an electronic suspension system that uses vehicle sensor data to determine whether to increase or decrease a damping force of vehicle suspension components).
Ohashi and Ohno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein vehicle sensor data is used to update or adjust suspension frequency or dampening settings as taught by Ohno. Doing so could improve a suspension system by implementing a feedback system that dynamically updates frequency or dampening settings based on input from system sensors. This could improve vehicle reliability, service life, and handling by enabling the vehicle to react accordingly to various road surfaces, vehicle speeds, lateral acceleration amounts, etc.
In regard to Claim 17, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling.
However, Ohno teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling (see Paragraph 129 lines 1-9 teaching that the system uses road condition sensor data to adjust suspension frequency or dampening settings).
Ohashi and Ohno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein road condition sensor data is used to update or adjust suspension frequency or dampening settings as taught by Ohno. Doing so could improve a suspension system by implementing a feedback system that dynamically updates frequency or dampening settings based on road condition sensor data. This could improve vehicle reliability, service life, and handling by enabling the vehicle to react accordingly to various road surfaces or conditions.
In regard to Claim 19, Ohashi fails to teach determining an increased pressure for the second suspension component, and
Adjusting the second suspension component to increase a pressure at the second suspension component to the increased pressure.
However, Ohno teaches determining an increased pressure for the second suspension component, and
Adjusting the second suspension component to increase a pressure at the second suspension component to the increased pressure (see Paragraph 155, Claim 1 teaching that the system determines a target damping force for a set of actuators, including the rear actuators, and corrects the damping force based on the target).
Ohashi and Ohno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature where a target damping force or frequency is determined for the rear axle, and the damping force is adjusted based on the target as taught by Ohno. Doing so could improve a suspension system by enabling it to determine an optimal amount of damping for the rear axle, and adjusting it accordingly. This could increase suspension adjustment accuracy, improving safety, reliability, and handling.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Ohno (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0307339 A1), in further view of Brandon (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0068139 A1).
In regard to Claim 11, Ohashi fails to teach wherein the sensor data comprises data indicating one or more of a number of passengers in the vehicle or a weight of passengers in the vehicle.
However, Brandon teaches wherein the sensor data comprises data indicating one or more of a number of passengers in the vehicle or a weight of passengers in the vehicle (see Paragraph 87 teaching an autonomous vehicle system that determines how many passengers are in a vehicle based on vehicle sensor data).
Ohashi and Brandon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle systems that use sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that uses sensor data to determine how many passengers are in a vehicle as taught by Brandon. Doing so could improve a vehicle suspension system by enabling it to calculate the vehicle’s weight and weight distribution, which could enable the system to implement settings that correspond to the weight data. This could improve vehicle reliability and handling.
Claims 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Yoshioka (U.S. Patent 5,401,052).
In regard to Claim 12, Ohashi fails to teach wherein reducing the first ride frequency comprises adjusting the first adjustment component until a difference between the first ride frequency the second ride frequency meets or exceeds a threshold difference.
However, Yoshioka teaches wherein reducing the first ride frequency comprises adjusting the first adjustment component until a difference between the first ride frequency the second ride frequency meets or exceeds a threshold difference (see Claim 9 teaching that a damping force is applied to the suspension shock absorbers when a difference in the damping force between front and rear wheels exceeds a predetermined value).
Ohashi and Yoshioka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that decreases suspension component frequency based on whether the difference between front and rear damping meets a threshold or not as taught by Yoshioka. Doing so could increase vehicle safety by ensuring that the front and rear portions of the vehicle do not have excessively disparate frequencies. This could improve vehicle stability.
In regard to Claim 18, Ohashi fails to teach wherein adjusting the second ride frequency comprises adjusting the second suspension component until a difference between the first ride frequency and the second ride frequency meets or exceeds a threshold difference.
However, Yoshioka teaches wherein adjusting the first ride frequency comprises adjusting the first adjustment component until a difference between the first ride frequency the second ride frequency meets or exceeds a threshold difference (see Claim 9 teaching that a damping force is applied to the suspension shock absorbers when a difference in the damping force between front and rear wheels exceeds a predetermined value).
Ohashi and Yoshioka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that decreases suspension component frequency based on whether the difference between front and rear damping meets a threshold or not as taught by Yoshioka. Doing so could increase vehicle safety by ensuring that the front and rear portions of the vehicle do not have excessively disparate frequencies. This could improve vehicle stability.
Ohashi further fails to teach wherein adjusting the second ride frequency comprises increasing the second ride frequency.
However, Harder teaches wherein adjusting the second ride frequency comprises increasing the second ride frequency (see Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 5 teaching that the system adjusts suspension components such as struts to have a relatively hard or relatively soft characteristic).
Ohashi and Harder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature that could increase or decrease the frequency of a suspension component as taught by Harder. Doing so could improve a suspension system by enabling both the front and the rear portion of the vehicle to be capable of high and low stiffness characteristics, increasing the performance range of the vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (U.S. Patent 4,761,022) in view of Strelic (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0300489 A1), in further view of You (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0323562), in further view of Ohno (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0307339 A1), in further view of Yu (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0384980 A1).
In regard to Claim 14, Ohashi fails to teach wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a sensor data on a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling.
However, Ohno teaches wherein at least one of reducing the first ride frequency or increasing the second ride frequency is further based at least in part on a sensor data on a road surface on which the vehicle is traveling (see Paragraph 129 lines 1-9 teaching that the system uses road condition sensor data to adjust suspension frequency or dampening settings).
Ohashi and Ohno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein road condition sensor data is used to update or adjust suspension frequency or dampening settings as taught by Ohno. Doing so could improve a suspension system by implementing a feedback system that dynamically updates frequency or dampening settings based on road condition sensor data. This could improve vehicle reliability, service life, and handling by enabling the vehicle to react accordingly to various road surfaces or conditions.
Ohashi further fails to teach wherein the road surface data indicates one or more obstacles detected on the road surface.
However, Yu teaches wherein the road surface data indicates one or more obstacles detected on the road surface (see Abstract, Paragraph 5 lines 40-43 teaching an electronic vehicle suspension system wherein the system adjusts the suspension based on sensor data, including data indicating that the road surface that the vehicle is traversing has potholes, bumps, or debris).
Ohashi and Yu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle suspension systems controlled by an electronic controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohashi’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system can detect if the road surface around the vehicle contains obstacles as taught by Yu. Doing so could improve an electronic suspension system by adjusting the suspension when obstacles are ahead. Doing so could improve the reliability and terrain-traversing capability of a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights